How the capture and a strictly-regulated market for white whales could advance science and conservation

Wikimedia

Sailors for centuries have dubbed them
"canaries of the sea" for their chirps and warbles. One bioacoustic
scientist famously noted that they sounded "reminiscent of a string
orchestra tuning up." Belugas, or white whales, are also among the first cetaceans to have
been brought into captivity -- in part because of their striking white
appearance and engaging personalities but also because keepers say
they're quick to adapt and train.

That impression was reinforced last week with the emergence of audio
recordings of a beluga named "Noc" -- without prompting -- seemingly
mimicking human voices. Noc was recorded during research at the National
Marine Mammal Foundation in San Diego in the 1980s, when scientists say
they subsequently taught him to "speak" on cue.

But the capture, harming, or import of belugas has been illegal in U.S.
waters since the passage 40 years ago of the U.S. Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). That legislation has helped many species of whale
and other marine mammal to rebound from centuries of slaughter.

As we noted in this blog recently,
however, Georgia Aquarium and four oceanarium partners want an
exception to import 18 belugas for a captive-breeding project. We
described the debate over whether the U.S. regulatory body in question
should approve that request.

Critics note that wild whales are torn from tight-knit pods. They say
the methods for capture and transport are cruel. They note that many
wild populations of belugas are threatened. They suggest that beluga
lifespans are woefully brief in captivity. And above all, they insist
that even Georgia Aquarium's 32,000 cubic meters of water isn't enough
for healthy, highly intelligent sea mammals born to travel huge
distances in the open ocean.

Defenders -- including scientists commissioned by the applicants -- say
the loss of so few animals poses no risk to an Arctic and sub-Arctic
beluga population of around 150,000 animals. They also say scientific
and educational benefits offset the negative aspects of captivity.

RFE/RL correspondent Tom Balmforth managed to contact one such defender,
Russian scientist Dmitry Glazov. Glazov is a beluga specialist at the
Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute for Ecology and Evolution
Problems, and has headed tagging expeditions in the Sea of Okhotsk,
where Russia's beluga-capture efforts are based.

We learned that the 18 animals at issue in the U.S. case are just a drop
in the ocean compared with the quota of 1,060 belugas set by Russian
authorities for 2012 to provide food for indigenous minorities
(Chukchi), scientific research, or entertainment. (The breakdown of
captures versus hunts was not available.)

The Russian beluga program has been accused by animal rights and
ecological groups of recklessly catching all sorts of wild marine
mammals to become a leader in a booming international trade.

Glazov is one of six members of a national fisheries board that sets
quotas on catches of belugas and other sea creatures, and insists he's
well aware that there are threatened beluga populations. He counters
that Soviet-era and subsequent studies indicate the population in the
Sea of Okhotsk from which Russia is capturing whales is "growing."

Glazov:

I would say the following: The capture of up to 100 beluga whales
will definitely not have any impact [on the species' survival] as this
issue has been studied several times both during the Soviet era and
recently and the most important thing is that the population in this
region is growing at the moment. They are doing well in contrast, for
instance, to the population in Kamchatka. This is in the Okhotsk Sea,
but from the direction of Kamchatka. There are belugas there, but they
are not doing well -- which is why, for instance, I in my capacity as an
expert, recommended that they at least halve the quota, which had been
fairly high -- around 100. As far as the large quotas of 300 or 340 are
concerned, I am of course in principle against it. But from the point of
view of the law, as an expert I cannot oppose statistics on this
because in order to argue a basis for reducing the quota, it would be
necessary to carry out more large-scale research. Nonetheless, although
this figure of 300 is frightening, it has never in recent times been
reached. No one has managed to catch that many. It is physically and
economically impossible at the moment.

Asked about conditions in captivity, Glazov cited his work with whales
in and out of the wild. His answer is certain to anger opponents of
captivity for highly developed animals like dolphins and belugas, many
of whom say there's simply not enough data available to draw conclusions
about comparative lifespans. (One former SeaWorld trainer said none of
the animals he'd trained in the 1990s nor their offspring were still
alive.)

Again, Glazov:

I can't report that the animals are unhappy in captivity. They
adapt well and are able to play. They live there longer than in the wild
-- I've studied it [and] they live about 1 1/2 to two times longer.
Moreover, if it's done well, there is a huge plus in that people who
find themselves among nature and, say, throw things in the sea -- these
people, by interacting with these animals, come to understand what these
creatures are. They realize that they are not pictures on TV or
something abstract, but intelligent, beautiful, sociable, and
interesting animals that need to be looked after. It is difficult for
people to understand this any other way.

Finally, Glazov suggests that pressure to catch more wild belugas is
growing -- thanks to domestic and foreign demand for the animals -- and
won't go away anytime soon:

Over probably the last three years, since China is developing
quickly and they are building oceanariums, they are requesting lots of
these animals. In Russia, as strange as it sounds, there is quite high
domestic demand for this animal, too. That's why the number of
commercial organizations that want to catch them and apply for
permission to do so has gone up. And [on] the Sea of Okhotsk's Tchkal
Island -- where the only team that is able to catch them is based --
they used to catch 20 animals per year for transport or sale. Now they
apply to catch 40 to 50 animals. However, in principle, for the time
being, the weather, boats and so on don't allow them to catch more than
25 to 30 animals.

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.